A. T. DAMGUARD, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CLARA A. DAMGUARD, APPELLANT,
v.
W. H. TUNNICLIFFE, AS RECEIVER OF THE COMMERCIAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF WEST PALM BEACH, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal because the relator improperly used chancery appeal procedures for a common law mandamus action, which did not grant the appellate court jurisdiction.
No, a final judgment in a common law mandamus action cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court using the notice of appeal procedure applicable only to chancery causes. This procedural defect deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary common law remedy. If a review by this Court of a final judgment in mandamus is desirhd it should be brought here by appellate process appropriate to common law actions.”
Establishes the nature of mandamus and the required appellate process.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe relator filed a notice of appeal in the minute book of the lower court, which was the procedure for chancery causes, after a final judgment quashi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandamus cases and more on FLexlaw
Strum, J.
In a proceeding in mandamus, a final judgment was rendered in the court below quashing the alternative writ, assessing costs against the relator and dismissing the respondent without day. The relator has attempted to bring the cause-before this Court for review by causing to be filed and recorded in the Minute Book of the lower court a notice of entry of appeal in the form applicable to chancery causes, as prescribed by Sec. 3172, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920; Sec. 4964, Comp. Gen. Laws, 1927.
Mandamus is an extraordinary common law remedy. If a review by this Court of a final judgment in mandamus is desirhd it should be brought here by appellate process appropriate to common law actions. Such judgment can not be brought to the Supreme Court for review by the filing and recording of a notice of entry of appeal. Such procedure is applicable only to chancery causes, and it not effective to invest this Court with appellate jurisdiction of either the subject matter of or the parties to a common law action. State ex rel. Martin v. Board of Commissioners of Hillsborough County, 80 Fla. 332, 86 So. R. 206; Hagan v. State ex rel. Williams, 85 Fla. 27, 95 So. R. 617.
A general appearance of the pax’ties in this Court does not cure the lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter, nor will Chap. 11890, Acts of 1927, avail to remedy the matter, since the deficiency here involved is not merely one of procedure, but is jurisdictional.
Dismissed.
Ellis, C. J., and Brown, J., concur. Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hogan v. State of Fla. ex rel. G. W. Williams, 85 Fla. 27 (Fla. 1923)
- The State of Fla. ex rel. E. P. Martin v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Hillsborough Cnty., 80 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1920)